Immune responses and protection in catla (Catla catla) vaccinated against epizootic ulcerative syndrome

Saikia, Dipangka; Kamilya, Dibyendu

doi:10.1016/j.fsi.2011.11.030

Cited by 23 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, 100% mortality was observed in both groups of fish. In contrast to our findings, Saikia and Kamilya (2012) reported that there was reduction in the mortality percentage of the immunised group of fish, but it was not statistically significant (p>0.05). The authors suggested that one of the reasons for not showing significantly higher protection against A. invadans in the immunised groups could be that secondary immunisation was not performed in their experiment.…”

contrasting

confidence: 99%

“…However, in the present study, fish were given a booster dose following primary immunisation and were challenged with less number of zoospores i.e. 100 zoospores per fish compared to 20000 zoospores by Saikia and Kamilya (2012). Therefore, it can be concluded that it may not be easy to induce protective immunity following immunisation with conventional antigenic preparations A. invadans.…”

mentioning

confidence: 65%

“…In accordance with our results, Fregeneda-Grandes et al (2007) reported humoral antibody response against a pathogenic isolate of Saprolegnia parasitica following immunisation with antigenic extracts in brown trout Salmo trutta. Similarly, Saikia and Kamilya (2012) reported significant antibody response in Catla catla following single immunisation with fungal extract, fungal extract mixed with FIA and extracellular products. Previously, Thompson et al (1999) also reported that immunised fish had significantly higher antibody level at 11 th week of immunisation,compared to the control group.…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Although A. invadans invasion has been reported to elicit an antibody response, it is not clear whether the antibodies are protective (Thompson et al, , 1999. Recently, Saikia and Kamilya (2012), following single immunisation in Catla catla with different antigens of A. invadans, reported that amongst the antigen preparations, fungal extract mixed with Freund's incomplete adjuvant showed the highest antibody production. However, these antibodies did not offer significant protection against A. invadans challenge.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Immunisation of Labeo rohita with Antigenic preparation of Aphanomyces invadans

Yadav¹,

Pradhan²,

Sood³

et al. 2017

Indian J. Fish.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aphanomyces invadans is an important fungal pathogen infecting freshwater and brackishwater fishes. In the present study, an attempt has been made to determine the effect of immunisation in Labeo rohita advanced fingerlings against A. invadans infection. The efficacy of the immunisation was evaluated by challenge with A. invadans as well as quantification of antibody level by ELISA. Following an initial immunisation in conjunction with adjuvant, the fish were given a booster dose after 35 days. After 14 and 28 days of the booster injection, blood was collected from the immunised rohu for monitoring the antibody level. The fish were also challenged with A. invadans zoospores to determine the relative percent survival. The immunised fish had significantly higher antibody level after 14 days of booster injection as compared to the control fish. However, the antibody level after 28 days of booster injection was not significantly different from the control fish. More importantly, similar to control fish, 100% mortality was observed in the immunised fish challenged after 14 and 28 days of booster immunisation. Therefore, it can be concluded that it may not be suitable to induce protective immunity following immunisation with conventional antigenic preparations.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 65%

mentioning

confidence: 87%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Immunisation of Labeo rohita with Antigenic preparation of Aphanomyces invadans

Yadav¹,

Pradhan²,

Sood³

et al. 2017

Indian J. Fish.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At present there are no direct competitors for commercial fish-vaccines other than universities (Dipangka & Dibyendu, 2012;Harikrishnan, Balasundaram, & Heo, 2012;Maiti et al, 2012;Rajesh Kumar et al, 2008) and research institutes (Behera & Swain, 2012;Swain et al, 2010) which provide experimental vaccines. The most likely competitors in India are substitute manufacturers such as Hindustan Ciba-Geigy Ltd, Glaxo Laboratories, etc., who are supplying chemotherapeutic agents for aquaculture enterprises (Pathak, Ghosh, & Palanisamy, 2000).…”

Section: The Competitive Landscape In the Fish Vaccines Segment In Indiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic Macro-Environmental Factor Analysis for Entry into the Fish Vaccines Market in India

Pallapothu

Krause

2013

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, the aquaculture segment continues to be the fastest growing food-fish producing segment and for India, the second largest food-fish producing country, it was forecasted that the segment would grow at an average annual growth rate of approximately 7.0% to reach a total production target of 8-10 million tons by 2020. Currently no commercial fish vaccines are available in India; therefore, the macro-environmental factors with respect to the competitive, political, economic, socio-cultural, technological, and legal landscapes, which influence a potential entrant's strategic business decisions to set up a fish vaccines company, are evaluated. The results indicate that although the macro-environmental factors in India are improving there are still some bureaucratic hurdles to be overcome by an entrant to assure success.

show abstract